How the Internet killed the Stop Online Piracy Act

A gallery illustrating the movement to stop SOPA, one year after historic protests.

The world would come to know the Internet censorship proposal as the Stop Online Piracy Act, but the key provisions were first introduced as COICA. COICA would have required DNS servers, credit card processors, and ad networks to block access by alleged pirate sites.

Internet prodigy Aaron Swartz is one of the first to recognize the damaging potential of COICA and begins a petition site called Demand Progress to oppose it. The site grows rapidly and eventually evolves into a 527 organization led by David Segal. It plays a key role in organizing opposition to SOPA. Here, Swartz is speaking out against COICA's successor, the Protect IP Act, in January 2012.

The new legislation adds search engines like Google to the list of intermediaries who must take steps to block pirate sites. It also creates a "private right of action," allowing private copyright holders, not just the government, the power to seek court orders blocking pirate sites. And it provides private intermediaries with immunity if they decide to take unilateral actions to block pirate sites. PIPA is quickly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, setting the stage for a vote by the full Senate.

SOPA is designed to be the House companion to PIPA, but as our headline put it, "House takes Senate's bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse." In addition to all the bad ideas in PIPA and COICA, SOPA would have created a new DMCA-style notice-and-takedown regime that would have empowered private copyright holders to demand ad networks and payment processors to block alleged pirate sites without any court oversight at all.

Led by chairman Lamar Smith, the House Judiciary Committee holds hearings on SOPA. The panel is heavily stacked in favor of the legislation. It includes five supporters plus Google policy counsel Katherine Oyama (pictured) as the token opponent. Critics cry foul about the unbalanced witness list and the failure to hear testimony from any technology experts.

The House's top Democrat, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), declares her opposition to SOPA on Twitter, saying that her colleagues "need to find a better solution." Two days earlier, libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) also declares his opposition.

The House Judiciary Committee holds a "markup" for the Stop Online Piracy Act on December 15. A few months earlier, PIPA had sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. But in a sign of growing grassroots opposition, the House markup is contentious, with opponents doing everything they could to delay the proceedings. Shown here is Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), one of the youngest and most tech-savvy members of the committee, who was a key opponent of the legislation. SOPA supporters such as Mel Watt (D-NC) speak derisively about the "nerds" (e.g. technology experts) the committee had not bothered to consult before marking up the legislation. "I’m not a person to argue about the technology of this," Watt says. The opponents seem outnumbered, but they offer so many amendments that Chairman Smith eventually decides to recess for the holidays and resume work on the bill in February 2012.

Opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act grows on the right hand side of the political spectrum. "I love Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress," writes prominent conservative blogger Eric Erickson (pictured). But he pledges to "do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid" if she didn't drop her support for SOPA. James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, also announced his opposition to the legislation earlier in December.

By December, the technology sector is virtually unified in its opposition to SOPA. Even the maximalist Business Software Alliance is expressing reservations. The domain registrar Go Daddy is one of the few technology companies on the record in favor of the legislation. In response, thousands of furious technologists begin transferring their domain names to other registrars and recommending that their clients do likewise. It doesn't take Go Daddy long to get the message and announce it is dropping its support. But many angry protestors declare the reversal hollow and go forward with the previously scheduled "Dump Go Daddy Day" the following week.

As the new year dawns, Internet activists intensify their efforts to stop SOPA and PIPA. After redditors raise $15,000 to finance a primary challenge to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), he declares his opposition on January 3, 2012. The next week, six Republican Senators write a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to delay a vote on PIPA. "We have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation," they write. One of the letter's signers is Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), pictured here, who was traditionally considered to be one of the strongest backers of copyright enforcement.

In response to an online petition, the Obama administration announces that it opposes the DNS filtering provisions of SOPA. "Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security," the statement says.

With momentum against SOPA building, the MPAA tries to backpedal. Speaking at the State of the Net conference, an MPAA spokesman declares the DNS filtering provisions of SOPA "off the table" and insists that debate should go forward on the other, less controversial provisions of the legislation. The move proves to be too little, too late. Shown here is MPAA chairman and former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).

Thousands of websites across the Internet go dark in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act. The most prominent is Wikipedia, which replaces almost all pages with a notice urging readers to call their members of Congress. The notice gets 162 million pageviews. Google, reddit, and other major sites also join the protest. Google says it generated 7 million signatures against SOPA. Here at Ars Technica, we devoted every article we published to the SOPA debate.

The online protest triggers an avalanche of calls and emails. Spooked members of Congress rush to distance themselves from the legislation. In the Senate, 16 Republicans and 3 Democrats—including several former co-sponsors—declare their opposition to PIPA. Dozens of House members also declare their opposition.

Illustration by Aurich Lawson

Candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination hold a debate on January 19. Ron Paul is already on the record opposing SOPA, but Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all declare their opposition at the debate. "You're asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood," Newt Gingrich says. "I favor freedom."

Shell-shocked leaders in both houses of Congress announce that they are indefinitely suspending consideration of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act.

Aurich Lawson

Listing image by Aurich Lawson

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

19 Reader Comments

I really enjoyed blacking Ars out for SOPA and theming every single image for the day. Lent everything a great cohesion. No idea what it would take to dedicate the entire site to a topic like that again. We've done some other creative things, like for the Windows 8 launch, but we were still running regular news that day.

Just this week the fantastic podcast Decode DC released episode #6 on this exact topic, and how Hollywood has tried to portray the entire episode as Google's lobbying instead of push back by actual citizenry.

When a bunch of "nerds" and "geeks"* and "experts" who were unorganized, full of white noise and going in different directions all came together for a single cause... and more impressively were strong enough to overwhelm the tens of millions of dollars as well as years of back door deals that the MAFIAA had thrown into the project.

The MAFIAA woke up a sleeping giant that day, we kicked butt and the time to stand up is over, but now its time to be _vigilant_ because the scummies are going to try to sneak stuff in slowly... and when they do we got to be ready to stand up and kick butt again!

I still can't get over that article about the MPAA declaring DNS filtering "off the table." I mean, we all knew they were bribing Congress to do their will, but the way they were so casual about it blew my mind.

Great example and I appreciate Ars is continuing to keep this in the discussion because we know they will try again and we need to be vigilant and not have a short attention span on this topic. Every year you should revisit this and see where we are on the legislation front so people are kept aware of what can happen if we let our guard down. Great job guys!

SOPA supporters such as Mel Watt (D-NC) speak derisively about the "nerds" (e.g. technology experts) the committee had not bothered to consult before marking up the legislation. "I’m not a person to argue about the technology of this," Watt says.

If you know nothing about the technology, you need to listen to people who do or you will fail in your duty as a "representative". People seem to think that "technology can and should do everything" - well, no.

Unless you feel that the only people you need to represent live in Hollywood.

Remember, our opponents do this for a living. They get a paycheck and a bonus for getting the job done. When they get overloaded they hire assistants. They have a business structure and a plan. They can convert money directly into action and legislation and enforcement.

It took a lot of work and effort to oppose them. One time. We've heard how the legislature didn't expect the response they got, and I'm sure they are scared of seeing it again, but really, I feel like no lasting change was made to the system.

For me it keeps coming back to the voters. Too many don't want to give the effort that's required. Too many feel, rightly so, that their voice will never be heard. Too many have turned their backs.

We need a real solution, that disarms and neuters the corporations, and that recovers the voters. We need both. But if we just fixed the voters, then we could fix the government, to fix the laws.

The reason that SOPA and PIPA got so far is because the tech sector was, and remains, disorganized and uncoordinated in their lobbying efforts compared to their opponents, the RIAA and MPAA, with respect to copyright law and DMCA safe harbors. Thankfully, the public was (at the last moment) able to pour out so much opposition to the bill that it became toxic to even support it.

However, had it not been shelved in November and had been brought to a quick vote instead, it would almost certainly have passed. (In other words, it was killed because it was on the table for too long, which allowed more and more voters to discover its DNS and commercial/financial takedown clauses.)

Unfortunately, until tech companies realize that pooling their resources to hire and retain a dedicated group of lobbyists in Washington to advocate for the rights of the tech industry (via revisions to the DMCA or introduction of new copyright legislation), like the RIAA and MPAA are doing, is in their best interests, bills like this will likely continue to be a problem for the tech industry.

If you know nothing about the technology, you need to listen to people who do or you will fail in your duty as a "representative". People seem to think that "technology can and should do everything" - well, no.

Going off the example, the payoff for the MPAA & RIAA (Prisoner A) to pool their resources to lobby Congress is greater than the monetary reward for not lobbying Congress. The tech industry (Prisoner B), however, either does not recognize this or, like you, considers themselves "above" the tactics of the MPAA & RIAA.

This is just another event in the long like of lucky successes for the (somewhat) nascent tech industry, starting with the DMCA (1998), and more recently with COICA, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. While they've so far managed to dodge the worst legislation tossed at them so far, eventually one of them will stick if they do not rally a sustained defense and offense.

The reason that SOPA and PIPA got so far is because the tech sector was, and remains, disorganized and uncoordinated in their lobbying efforts compared to their opponents, the RIAA and MPAA, with respect to copyright law and DMCA safe harbors. Thankfully, the public was (at the last moment) able to pour out so much opposition to the bill that it became toxic to even support it. Edit: Wording.

That's not quite true. Some pretty big names in the tech industry were on board with SOPA and PIPA, some of indirectly supported it as members of the BSA. Fortunately the BSA withdrew it's support (possibly because it realised that SOPA/PIPA could only be less popular if they had tacked on a provision to legalise child brides for people earning more than 200k per year). At least the statement they provided was useful in highlighting the lunacy of those bills.

I'd say that large chunks of the tech industry would be perfectly happy to see SOPA/PIPA revived. It's mostly smaller operations and companies heavy on user generated/posted content that risked ruin. I'm still amused that, had SOPA passed, Lamar Smith's campaign website could have been shutdown for a copyright violation. I sincerely hope that Smith is ejected from office, and immolates himself in a remote location where nobody will be bothered by his screams and the smell as a contemptible and duplicitous wretch helps make this world a better place.

I really enjoyed blacking Ars out for SOPA and theming every single image for the day. Lent everything a great cohesion. No idea what it would take to dedicate the entire site to a topic like that again. We've done some other creative things, like for the Windows 8 launch, but we were still running regular news that day.

And I took both of my Legal Domains which I pay for DOWN and replaced with Protest Pages !All of us here have Brains or we would not be reading Tech & Science.It is up to us to continue the fight and to make sure we try to tell as many other people we know what we think Politicians are doing to us Citizens of the World.I Post links to Ars, Techdirt, and other Sites on my facebook and in emails to friends.I try to give them some real Education.

Remember, our opponents do this for a living. They get a paycheck and a bonus for getting the job done. When they get overloaded they hire assistants. They have a business structure and a plan. They can convert money directly into action and legislation and enforcement.

It took a lot of work and effort to oppose them. One time. We've heard how the legislature didn't expect the response they got, and I'm sure they are scared of seeing it again, but really, I feel like no lasting change was made to the system.

For me it keeps coming back to the voters. Too many don't want to give the effort that's required. Too many feel, rightly so, that their voice will never be heard. Too many have turned their backs.

We need a real solution, that disarms and neuters the corporations, and that recovers the voters. We need both. But if we just fixed the voters, then we could fix the government, to fix the laws.

First off, corporations are not people, but they can be taxed. They benefit from government services including police and laws, infrastructure including roads, public transit and other services. As such, just bloody tax them, forget about trying to make a legal argument for why they should, just bloody do it. Also, campaign contributions are not free speech. Unless you are a natural person who has the right to vote, or will at some point in their lives, then you should not be guaranteed free speech. As such, a corporation is not entitled to free speech, be it of advertising or of campaign contributions. Their ads must follow certain rules to comply with law and so should their brib... I mean "donations". This right here, while not a final solution, would be a great place to start.

"indefinitely suspending consideration" does not equal PIPA and SOPA's graves. Vigilance continues to be required. I could easily see this atrocity of Corporate Oligarchy rule stuffed into the back of another bill in the dead of night.

IOW: It is entirely wise to expect We The People to be continually abused by our Corporate Oligarchy until such time as we make corporate 'personhood' and all included bogus 'rights', as well as financial influences upon our government and elections illegal and imprisonable offenses.

The USA is a country of individual citizens. Dictating anything upon the citizenry through any organization or groups of organizations is nothing more than a return to feudalism.